Officers have the Right to Defend their Name – THISDAYLIVE

Gbenga Aladejebi

When SERAP accused operatives of the Department of State Services of unlawfully invading its Abuja office and harassing its staff, the allegation entered public debate with the force of fact.

For many people, the story was already complete: a security agency had intimidated a civil society organisation. Yet behind the broad description of “DSS operatives” were identifiable officers whose careers, names, and professional records came under suspicion. In any society governed by law, those officers must have a route to defend themselves.

That is the point at the heart of the recent judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory in favour of two DSS officers, Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele. The case should not be treated as another clash between a security agency and an advocacy group. That framing may suit public argument, but it weakens the real issue. The more important question is whether public officers, when accused of unlawful conduct, retain the same right as other citizens to ask a court to protect their reputation. They do.

A country that wants security agencies to respect the law should not condemn officers when they choose the lawful path. The courtroom exists for exactly this kind of dispute. It allows facts to be tested, claims to be challenged, and remedies to be granted or denied according to law. In this case, the court heard the matter and ruled in favour of the claimants. It awarded ₦100 million as general damages, ₦1 million as cost of litigation, ordered public apologies, and imposed 10 percent interest per annum on the judgment sum until payment.

Nigeria needs civil society. Organisations such as SERAP have helped to keep public accountability in view. They ask questions that many citizens want answered. They challenge government conduct and draw attention to abuse, waste and official impunity. That role should remain protected. A democracy loses something important when citizens and civic organisations become afraid to question authority. Government institutions, especially those that exercise coercive powers, must accept scrutiny as part of public life.

Scrutiny, however, must be separated from grave accusation. To criticise a public institution is one thing. To allege that identifiable officers unlawfully invaded an office, harassed staff and intimidated citizens is a more serious matter. Such an allegation can trigger internal queries, damage confidence in an officer’s professional judgment, affect standing among colleagues and place a family under public embarrassment. Once a claim reaches that level, evidence must carry it.

The Department of State Services has stated that the affected officers were suspended, subjected to an internal disciplinary process, and later allowed to pursue legal redress after the Service found that they did not unlawfully invade SERAP’s office or harass its staff. That sequence matters because it shows that the allegation was not dismissed casually. According to the DSS account, the officers first faced internal scrutiny before they approached the court.

This is the balance that public debate must preserve. Where officers abuse power, institutions must investigate and sanction them. No public agency should protect misconduct because the person involved belongs to it. At the same time, officers who are cleared through internal processes should not be left permanently exposed to reputational injury when a serious public allegation cannot be proven. Public service does not cancel citizenship. Uniforms, offices and official titles do not erase the right to dignity.

Some have described the judgment as a threat to civic space. That concern should not be dismissed because Nigeria needs a public sphere where journalists, citizens and civic organisations can question government without fear. But civic space cannot mean that every damaging claim is protected from legal challenge. Free expression protects criticism, investigation and public challenge. It does not remove the responsibility to prove serious allegations against identifiable persons.

This distinction is important for government as much as it matters for civil society. If a security agency acts unlawfully, civil society should speak and demand accountability. If an advocacy organisation makes a claim that does not survive legal scrutiny, the affected persons should also be able to seek redress. The rule of law does not protect only the critic. It protects the citizen who is criticised, the public officer who is accused, and the organisation that chooses to appeal a judgment it considers wrong.

SERAP has appealed the judgment and applied for a stay of execution. That is its right. The appellate court may affirm, vary or overturn the decision. The appeal should be allowed to proceed without prejudice. At the same time, respect for appeal does not require the public to pretend that the High Court judgment does not exist. Until a higher court decides otherwise, it remains part of the legal record.

The lesson from this case is not that civil society should become silent. Nigeria benefits when civic organisations ask hard questions and insist on accountability. The lesson is that serious claims must be checked before they are published, especially when they can damage identifiable persons. The same standard applies to government, the media, civil society and every citizen who enters public debate. Accuracy strengthens advocacy. Recklessness weakens it.

The officers went to court because their names were placed under public suspicion. SERAP has gone on appeal because it disagrees with the judgment. Both steps belong within the legal order. What should not survive this case is the assumption that an allegation becomes responsible advocacy simply because it is directed at a security agency.

No public institution should be above scrutiny, and no citizen should lose the right to defend a name because he or she serves in uniform, works in government, or belongs to an agency that some people distrust. Democracy requires criticism, but justice also requires reputation to be protected when accusations fail the test of proof.

Aladejebi is a public affairs commentator